This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen]On: 04 October 2014, At: 23:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sport andExercise PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijs20

How perceived autonomy support fromadults and peer motivational climateare related with self-determinedmotivation among young athletesVello Heina & Helen Jõesaarb

a Institute of Sport Pedagogy and Coaching Sciences, Faculty ofExercise and Sports Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estoniab Archimedes Foundation, Coordinator of Faculty Development,Centre for Higher Education Development, Tartu, EstoniaPublished online: 08 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Vello Hein & Helen Jõesaar (2014): How perceived autonomy supportfrom adults and peer motivational climate are related with self-determined motivationamong young athletes, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, DOI:10.1080/1612197X.2014.947304

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2014.947304

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

How perceived autonomy support from adults and peer motivationalclimate are related with self-determined motivation among young athletes

Vello Heina* and Helen Jõesaarb

aInstitute of Sport Pedagogy and Coaching Sciences, Faculty of Exercise and Sports Sciences, Universityof Tartu, Tartu, Estonia; bArchimedes Foundation, Coordinator of Faculty Development, Centre forHigher Education Development, Tartu, Estonia

(Received 24 July 2013; accepted 8 June 2014)

Assessing the motivational responses of 662 young athletes aged 11-16 years, this studyexamined a model of motivation that incorporates constructs from achievement goal andself-determination theories. The focus was on the prediction of young athletes’ self-determined motivation from perceived autonomy support from parent and coaches and fromdimensions of peer motivational climate. The structural equation modelling analysissupported the model in which autonomy support from parents and coaches as antecedents informing the perceived peer motivational climate are related to prediction of self-determinedmotivation. Autonomy support from parents was a stronger predictor of self-determinedmotivation than autonomy support from coaches. From the dimensions of peer motivationalclimate, the intra-team competition/ability was the only dimension that had a negativesignificant direct effect on self-determined motivation. From an applied perspective, theseresults highlighted the importance of peers as essential influencers, along with adults, onyoung athletes’ sport motivation.

Keywords: self-determined motivation; achievement goal theory; autonomy support

Introduction

Sport is a prominent context in young peoples’ lives (Smoll & Smith, 2002). Participation in sportsorganised and/or supervised by adults’ plays an important role in the development of today’s chil-dren and youth. The social relationships of youth sports participants can contribute to or restrainfrom sport motivation and involvement with physical activity and are, therefore, of interest tosport psychology researchers. Recent research has showed that peers are key contributors alongwith adults in creating a motivational climate in sport settings (Jõesaar, Hein, & Hagger, 2012;Ntoumanis, Taylor, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2012; Ntoumanis & Vazou, 2005; Ullrich-French& Smith, 2006, 2009; Vazou, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006). Adopting a self-determination theory(SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985) and achievement goal theory (AGT, Nicholls, 1989) perspective, thisresearch is focused on the relationship of perceived autonomy support from coaches, parents andpeer motivational climate with self-determined motivation among young athletes.

Perceived motivational climate

The motivational climate studies are based on the goal orientation profile framework called AGT(Nicholls, 1989). Motivational climate reflects the salient features of an environment that create a

© 2014 International Society of Sport Psychology

*Corresponding author. Email: vello.hein@ut.ee

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2014.947304

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

task- or ego-oriented goal structure (Ames & Archer, 1988). Ames (1992) and Treasure andRoberts (1998) have noted that variations in achievement behaviour can be explained by the moti-vational climate created by significant others. In sport context, the studies of perceivedmotivationalclimate are principally based on the climate created by a coach (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000;Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992; Walling, Duda, & Chi, 1993). However, according to severalauthors (Evans & Roberts, 1987; Weiss, Smith, & Theeboom, 1996) peers can form opportunitiesfor skill development and represent sources of validation, social support and positive affect inachievement contexts. Pintrich, Conley, and Kempler (2003) have pointed out that interactionwith peers who may have a differing approach from the teacher towards engaging in the task,might impact students’ achievement goals in the classroom. Previous studies (Carr, Weigand, &Hussey, 1999; Carr, Weigand, & Jones, 2000; Jõesaar et al., 2012; Ntoumanis et al., 2012; Ntou-manis & Vazou, 2005) have explained how the motivational climate created by peers may berelated to self-determined motivation and affective outcomes. Carr et al. (1999, 2000) have exam-ined the peer motivational climate as well as the influence of parents, teachers and sports heroes onchildren’s achievement-related responses in physical education (PE) and sport. However, Carr withher colleagues assessed peer-created climate by rephrasing items from the PE Class Climate Scale(Biddle et al., 1995) and the Parental-Initiated Motivational Climate Questionnaire-2 (White,1996). Their research evidenced that both adult- and peer-created climate can relate to children’sgoal orientations, intrinsic motivation and perceptions of physical competence.

Peer Motivational Climate in Youth Sport Questionnaire (PeerMCYSQ) was developed byNtoumanis and Vazou (2005) to address the need for a specific instrument to assess peer motiva-tional climate. This instrument contains 21 items modelling ego-involving and task-involvinghigher order factors, which altogether include 5 of lower order factors (improvement relatednesssupport, effort, intra-team competition/ability and intra-team conflict). Vazou et al. (2006), usingthis instrument, examined the potential additive and interactive effects of the perceived coach- andpeer-created motivational climate on affective and behavioural motivation-related variables inthe youth sport setting. The results showed that enjoyment, measured by the subscale Interest-Enjoyment from Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989), was posi-tively predicted by both coach and peer task-involving motivational climate. Recently, Ntoumaniset al. (2012) have found the predictive effects of coach and peer motivational climate on moralattitude and emotional well-being. Also, a recent study by Jõesaar et al. (2012) indicated to theexistence of the effect from perceived autonomy support from the coach to task-involvingclimate and intrinsic motivation. The findings of these studies strengthen evidence for the rel-evance of peer-created motivational climate in youth sport along with the coach-created motiva-tional climate. Despite the general acknowledgement that coaches play a crucial role in formingmotivational climate in sport setting, the role of perceived autonomy from parents to peer motiva-tional climate remains to clarify.

Autonomy support

Central to SDT is the distinction between autonomous and controlling forms of motivation. SDTfocuses on the extent to which different types of motivation (intrinsic, identified regulation, intro-jected regulation, external regulation and amotivated) are autonomous or self-determined andexplains how social factors like behaviour of significant others and the social environmentimpact on motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2002). To be self-determined means to act with a senseof volition and choice.

In interpersonal processes, the supervisors’ behaviour can have a crucial impact on creating amotivational climate (Olympiou, Jowett, & Duda, 2008). How these authorities manage inter-action, give information and instruction, make assignments or arrange other items related to

2 V. Hein and H. Jõesaar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

the individuals determine what type of the motivational climate is created—task-involving or ego-involving. Autonomy support requires acknowledgement of the others’ perceptions, acceptanceof the others’ feelings and the advantage of self-initiated expression and action (Ryan & Solky,1996). According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987), significant others (e.g. teachers, coachesand parents), who are autonomy-supportive, engage in behaviours that acknowledge their subor-dinates’ thoughts and feelings, encourage choice, self-initiation and regulation of people’s ownbehaviour, as well as minimise the use of pressure and demand to control others. Studies havealso pointed out the link between perceived autonomy support from coaches and athletes’motives for participation (Gagne, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, &Brière, 2001). For example, Gagne et al. (2003) found that gymnasts who perceived theircoaches and parents to be autonomy-supportive and involved in their participation generallyreported higher self-determined motivation for gymnastics. Consistent with previous studies(Carr et al., 1999, 2000; Jõesaar et al., 2012), it allows to assume that the behaviour of supervisorshas an impact on forming the motivational climate, including the peer motivational climate.

It also suggests that the autonomy-supportive behaviour of authorities, which may be charac-terised as allowing to make decisions on the part of participants and providing feedback that isdirected towards the accomplishment of tasks and individual improvement, leading to the creationof task-involved climate. Several studies in various life domains have found that self-determinedbehaviour is promoted within a supportive non-coercive family climate (Grolnick, 2003; Soenens& Vansteenkiste, 2005). Hence, it is critical for people’s optimal functioning to experience a senseof autonomy and discretion in one’s actions (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Accordingto several authors, it is important for parents to support their children’s autonomous self-regu-lation (Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Silk, Morris, Kanaya, & Steinberg, 2003; Steinberg & Silk,2002). Empirical research grounded in a variety of theoretical perspectives has suggested thatparents and peers are key socialising agents in youth sport (Brustad & Partridge, 2002; Fredricks& Eccles, 2004). Indeed, parents who value and foster collaboration, improvement and effort incommunication with their children about sport activities might also affect task-involving peermotivational climate, which, in turn, is likely to develop their self-determined motivation.

To the best of our knowledge, no study has attempted to test how perceived autonomy supportfrom coaches and parents as social agents in combination are related with peer motivationalclimate and self-determined motivation in the sport context.

Therefore, the major purpose of this study was to examine how youth athletes’ perceptions ofautonomy support from their parents and coaches affect their sportmotivation via peermotivationalclimate. In general, based on previous research and theoretical tenets, we assumed that youth ath-letes’ perception of autonomy support from parents and coaches would influence youth athletes’self-determined motivation directly and indirectly via the dimensions of peer motivational climate.

More specifically, we hypothesised that perceived autonomy support from parents and coacheswould be positively related to task-involving dimensions of PeerMCYSQ (improvement/related-ness support and effort), which, in turn, would be positively related to self-determined motivation.Also, we hypothesised that perceived autonomy support from parents and coaches would be nega-tively related to ego-involving dimensions of PeerMCYSQ (intra-team competition/ability andintra-team conflict), which, in turn, would be negatively related to self-determined motivation.

Method

Research participants

The participants were 662 young athletes (441 males and 221 females) with ages ranging from 11to 16 years (mean age 13.18 years; SD = 1.52). The participants were recruited from different

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

sports clubs in Estonia. The sample included basketball (46%), volleyball (25%) and soccerplayers (29%). Athletes were taking training voluntarily as members of different sports clubsin Estonia that were enrolled in competition at national and provincial levels, but were notmembers of professional sports team.

Procedure

Permission to carry out the study in each club was afforded from the coach. The participants wereasked to complete the questionnaires before a regularly scheduled training session where thecoach was absent during that period of time. It was emphasised that the questionnaire was devel-oped to measure athletes’ general feeling about training climate. It was clearly stated to partici-pants that confidentiality would prevail at all times and, more specifically, their coach wouldnot see their responses. Participation was voluntary and all ethical data collection procedures(institutional approval, parent and coach consent and participant assent) were employed.

Measures

Peer-created motivational climate. PeerMCYSQ (Ntoumanis & Vazou, 2005) was used todetermine athletes’ perceptions of the peer-created motivational climate in their training group.The questionnaire contained 21 items modelling ego-involving and task-involving higher orderfactors, which altogether included 5 lower order factors. Athletes answered to the stem “In thisteam/training group, most athletes…” followed by four items measuring the improvement sub-scale (e.g. “…work together to improve the skills they do not do well”), three items measuringthe relatedness support subscale (e.g. “…make their teammates feel valued”), five items measur-ing the effort subscale (e.g. “… encourage their teammates to keep trying after they make amistake”), five items measuring the intra-team competition/ability (e.g. “… try to do betterthan their teammates”) and four items measuring the intra-team conflict (e.g. “…make negativecomments that put their teammates down”). Participants rated their responses on 7-point scalesanchored by “strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (7).

Sport Motivation Scale. The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS, Pelletier et al., 1995) was used toassess individuals’ motivation towards sport participation. The athletes were asked how muchthey agreed with the items based on the root question “Why do you currently participate insport?” The SMS consisted of 28 items that are divided into 7 subscales—amotivation, threetypes of extrinsic motivation (external, introjected and identified regulation) and three types ofintrinsic motivation (to know, towards accomplishment and to experience stimulation). Responseoptions indicated a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (correspondsexactly). Support for the validity and reliability of the intrinsic scales from the SMS modifiedfor PE context was previously obtained from Estonian sample (Hein, Müür, & Koka, 2004). Inthe present study involving youth sport athletes, the factor structure for the SMS was testedusing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and psychometrical parameters were estimated.

The seven motivational constructs measured by items from the SMS were integrated into aSelf-determination Index (SDI). This had the effect of reducing the overall number of variablesin the model and maximising the parsimony of subsequent models. First of all, the items ofeach motivational construct were measured by two random aggregates of items. For instance,the four items of external motivation were grouped in two-item-averaged scores via random split-ting of the scale. The SDI was calculated by giving each subscale a specific weight according tothe method used in several studies (Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand & Fortier, 1998). The scores for the

4 V. Hein and H. Jõesaar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

three types of intrinsic motivation were averaged and assigned the highest positive weight (+2)because intrinsic motivation is the highest self-determined form of motivation. Identified extrinsicmotivation, a self-determined type of extrinsic motivation, was assigned a lower weight (+1). Thescores for external regulation and introjection were averaged and assigned a negative weight (−1),and amotivation, which represents the absence of self-determination, was weighted highly nega-tively (−2). The latent variables assessing self-determined youth athletes’ motivation (SDI) con-sisted of two composite indexes, as the number of items of each subscale was aggregated to formtwo two-item-averaged scores.

Autonomy support by coaches and parents. The items adopted from the Sport Climate Ques-tionnaire (SCQ, Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, &Biddle, 2003) measured participants’ per-ception of the autonomy-supportive behaviours exhibited by their coaches and parents. The shortversion of the SCQcontains six items. It is designed to be used by athletes to report their perceptionsof their coaches or sport instructors. Nevertheless, the wording can be adjusted easily to assessautonomy-supportive behaviours (in the particular situation) by significant others such asparents. A sample item constituting the coaches’ autonomy-supportive scale is: “I feel that mycoach providesme choices and options”. A sample item comprising the parents’ autonomy-suppor-tive scale is: “Myparents convey confidence inme to be active/successful in sports”. Responses foreach item were made on 7-point Likert-type scales. Response options range from strongly disagree(1) to strongly agree (7), with higher scores evidencing a more autonomy-supportive style.

Translation procedures. To produce an Estonian version of the questionnaire, we used the stan-dardised back-translation technique (Brislin, 1986). At first, an interpreter translated the Englishversion of the questionnaire into Estonian and then another independent bilingual interpreter trans-lated the same items back into English. Second, the original English version was compared to theback-translated version and all errors and discrepancies were identified. The back-translation com-parison process was used until all the discrepancies were eliminated. The final version exhibited nocontradictions with the original English version of the measures when back-translated.

Data analyses. In this study, the CFA and structural equation modelling (SEM) were con-ducted using the LISREL 8.8 statistical software. For CFA and SEM models, the followingindices were analysed: the coefficient χ2, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df), Com-parative Fit Index (CFI), Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI) and root mean square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA). Cut-off values greater than 0.95 for CFI and NNFI and values equal to or lessthan 0.08 for RMSEA were considered acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

A series of CFAs were used to test the factorial validity of PeerMCYSQ, the scales of per-ceived autonomy support from coaches and parents (Table 2, Models 1, 2, 3 and 4).

Also, CFA was used to support the discriminant validity of the scales (measurement model,Table 2, Model 5) before structural modelling (Table 2, Model 6). In the analysis, items represent-ing constructs from the PeerMCYSQ (four scales), perceived autonomy support from coaches andparents, and from self-determined motivation were all set to indicate separate latent variable.

Results

Preliminary analysis

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), reliability and correlations among latentvariables are presented in Table 1. Overall, the participants reported higher scores in autonomy

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

support from parents than from coaches. The effort domain from PeerMCYSQ was evaluatedhigher than others. Internal reliability, using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, was acceptable (α >0.70) for all study variables, except intra-team competition/ability subscale of the PeerMCYSQ(α = 0.58). A low reliability of this scale in comparison with others was also found in the workof Vazou et al. (2006).

The analyses of the skewness and kurtosis estimate values revealed that not all data were nor-mally distributed. To protect from departures from normality, we generated the polychoric corre-lations and the asymptotic covariance matrices in subsequent CFAs and structural equation modelanalyses.

The PeerMCYSQ was tested for factorial validity and measurement model with all study vari-ables were tested for discriminant validity. One item from intra-team competition/ability (“Encou-rage each other to outplay their team-mates”) was problematic with very low factor loading. Theinternal reliability of this scale was also not acceptable (α = 0.49). Therefore, this item wasremoved. The CFA model with 20 items produced a 5-factor model with adequate fit indices(Table 2, Model 1).

Furthermore, due to the high correlation between improvement/relatedness support (r = 0.90),relatedness support/effort (r = 0.84) and improvement/effort (r = 0.84), a 4-factor model in whichimprovement and relatedness support were combined into one factor was retested. The resultsshowed also adequate fit indices for the 4-factor model (Table 2, Model 2).

The results of the CFA confirmed the acceptable fit with the data of the SMS (χ2 = 829.96,df = 340, p = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.047 (90% CI = 0.043-0.051), NNFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98).1

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliability and correlation among latent variables.

Mean SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6

(1) Autonomy support from coaches 5.33 1.11 0.82 –(2) Autonomy support from parents 5.89 0.97 0.81 0.53* –(3) Improvement/relatedness

support5.04 0.93 0.83 0.44* 0.34* –

(4) Effort 5.42 0.96 0.80 0.46* 0.35* 0.86* –(5) Intra-team competition/ability 4.89 0.91 0.58 0.07 0.14* 0.02 0.18* –(6) Intra-team conflict 3.67 1.28 0.76 0.20* 0.18* 0.54* 0.43* 0.57* –(7) Self-determined Motivation

Index0.25 0.25 0.22 0.21 −0.32 0.25

Note: *p < 0.05.

Table 2. Measurement fit indexes and structural equation models.

Models χ2 df CFI RMSEA CI90 RMSEA NNFI

Model 1 418.71 160 0.98 0.049 0.044-0.055 0.97Model 2 448.47 164 0.98 0.051 0.046-0.057 0.97Model 3 40.35 9 0.99 0.073 0.051-0.096 0.98Model 4 16.79 9 1.00 0.036 0.0-0.063 1.00Model 5 897.45 506 0.98 0.034 0.031-0.038 0.98Model 6 1255.47 512 0.97 0.047 0.044-0.050 0.97

Note: Model 1 = CFA of 5-factor peer motivational climate; Model 2 = CFA of 4-factor peer motivational climate; Model 3= CFA of autonomy support from coaches; Model 4 = CFA of autonomy support from parents; Model 5 = measurementmodel with all study variables; Model 6 = structural equation model; χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI =Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CI95 = 95% confidence interval and NNFI =Non-normed Fit Index.

6 V. Hein and H. Jõesaar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Despite one low internal reliability value of SMS measures (introjected regulation 0.60), theCronbach’s alpha coefficients were within the range 0.60-0.78.

The subscales designed to measure youth athletes’ perception of autonomy support fromcoaches and parents demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Table 1) and CFA confirmedthe existence of one-factor structure for both scales. The psychometrical parameters are presentedin Table 2, Models 3 and 4.

The CFA provided a well-fitting measurement model (Table 2, Model 5), which was based on34 observed variables and 7 latent constructs. After having assessed the adequacy of the factorstructure, the structural equation model was estimated using the maximum likelihood method(Jöreskog, Sörbom, du Toit, & du Toit, 2001).

Main analyses

The main purpose of SEM was to test the relations hypothesised among the study variables. Themodel (Figure 1) was constructed to test if perceived autonomy support from coaches and parentsand all dimensions of peer motivational climate structures had a direct effect on self-determinedmotivation. In addition, perceived autonomy support from coaches and parents was set to predictyouth athletes’ sport motivation indirectly via the dimensions of the peer motivation climate.Examination of the fit indexes revealed that the proposed structural model reproduced theobserved covariance matrix satisfactorily (Table 2, Model 6). Overall, the model accounted for19% of the variance in self-determined motivation. Examining the path coefficients in themodel confirmed partially the first hypothesis that perceived autonomy support from parentsand coaches would be positively related to task-involving dimensions (Figure 1). The perceivedautonomy support from coaches was positively related to the improvement/relatedness support(β = 0.44, p < 0.01) and to the effort (β = 0.44, p < 0.01) dimensions, whereas autonomysupport from parents was significantly related only to effort (β = 0.13 p < 0.01).

The hypothesis that perceived autonomy support from parents and coaches would be nega-tively related to both ego-involving dimensions was confirmed only with respect to intra-teamconflict dimension. No significant effects of both autonomy support from parents and coacheson intra-team competition/ability were followed. Intra-team conflict was negatively related tothe perceived autonomy support from coaches (β =−0.22, p < 0.01).

Autonomy support from parents predicted self-determined motivation (β = 0.13, p < 0.01),while autonomy support from coaches did not. The intra-team competition/ability was the onlydimension of the peer motivational climate that had a significant direct effect on the Self-deter-mined Motivation Index (β =−0.33, p < 0.01).

The investigation of the total and indirect effects of perceived autonomy support from adultson peer motivational climate and self-determined motivation showed that the perceived autonomysupport from coaches had significant total effect on motivation (β = 0.20, p < 0.01), whereas totaleffect from parents was not significant (β = 0.10, p > 0.05). In addition, there was no significantindirect effect of perceived autonomy support from parents and coaches on self-determinedmotivation.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to gain knowledge regarding the relationship between the perceivedautonomy support from coaches and parents and the perceptions of the peer motivational climate,as well as how these relations influence self-determined motivation among young athletes. Withregard to the validity of the measures, several CFAwere used. The results provided strong supportfor a 4-factor PeerMCYSQ in which improvement and relatedness support were combined into

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

one factor. It is possible that participants did not distinguish very well between the items from therelatedness support factor that referred to the criterion of a friendly atmosphere in the team anditems from the improvement factor where it tested on how peers work together and offer helpwhen needed. The results of our study supported fit indices for both 5-factor and 4-factormodels. However, based on the high intercorrelation between the improvement and relatednessfactors we concluded that the 4-factor model is more appropriate. Nevertheless, in order togain a better understanding of the different types of motivational climates occurring in youthsport, future research should continue to test the validity of the PeerMCYSQ.

A primary hypothesis of the present study was that youth athletes’ perception of autonomysupport from parents and coaches influences youth athletes’ self-determined motivation directlyand indirectly via the dimensions of peer motivational climate. The structural equation model inthe present study provided partial support for this hypothesis. This model showed a positive directeffect of autonomy support from both coaches and parents on self-determined motivation, butfrom parents it was statistically significant. Perceiving autonomy support from parents young ath-letes feel more self-determined, competent and involved in the learning process. These findingssupport the SDT that states that the social behaviour of coaches and parents are antecedents informing motivation (Brustad & Partridge, 2002; Pelletier et al., 2001). The results of our studyare consistent with Gagne et al. (2003) where the perception of parent and coach autonomysupport and involvement influenced the quality of the gymnasts’ motivation. The results ofthis study are also in line with previous findings in the educational domain revealing a predictiverole of autonomy-supportive behaviours in autonomous self-behaviour of students (Haggar,Biddle, & Wang, 2005; Reeve, 2002; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003).

Figure 1. Structural equation model of perceived autonomy support from adults on peer motivationalclimate and motivation. Note: SDI = Self-determined Motivation Index; *p < 0.05.

8 V. Hein and H. Jõesaar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

We arrived at interesting results in respect to total effects of autonomy support from coaches andparents onmotivation.More specifically, the total effect fromperceived autonomy support onmotiv-ationwas significant fromcoaches but not fromparents. Itmaybe conditioned because of lower levelinfluence from the autonomy support of parents on all dimensions of peer motivational climate incomparison with coaches. More precisely, the results showed that the paths from perceived auton-omy support from parents to improvement/relatedness support (β = 0.12) and effort (β = 0.13) wereconsiderablyweaker than from coaches (both pathswere β = 0.44). It allows to assume that the inter-personal processes between adults and young athletes have a different impact on athletes’ motiv-ation. Furthermore, the dimensions of perceived peer motivation climate may attenuate theimpact of autonomy support from adults on motivation. As discussed by Ntoumanis and Vazou(2005), in a newly formed team the dominant role in forming the motivational climate belongs toadults, but with the passage of time peers set in to influence athletes’motivation in the team. More-over, in a case where peers have a different approach from adults towards a task (e.g. skill develop-ment and refinement) peers might greatly impact young athletes’ achievement goals in sport.Nevertheless, future research is needed to better understand the relative impact of perceived auton-omy support from adults and perceived peer motivational climate on self-determined motivation. Inaddition, itwill be important to consider howperceived autonomy support fromcoaches, parents andnon-sport peers’ motivational climate predict self-determined motivation.

The results of our study supported the hypothesis that perceived autonomy support fromparents and coaches are positively related to task-involving dimensions of PeerMCYSQ andnegatively related to ego-involving dimensions of PeerMCYSQ. The perceived autonomysupport from coaches positively predicted the improvement/relatedness support and effort dimen-sions and negatively predicted only the intra-team conflict dimension. Therefore, the negativerelationship of the perceived autonomy from coaches to intra-team conflict shows that unsuppor-tive behaviours are likely to reduce athletes’ self-determined motivation in their sport. Withrespect to the relationships between autonomy support from parents and the dimensions ofpeer motivational climate, the only significant path was with the effort dimension. It allowsassuming that in the case of high perceived autonomy support from parents young athletesmay display more effort in training processes. According to the results of this study, perceivedautonomy support from coaches tends to be a stronger predictor of the task-involving dimensionof PeerMCYSQ than perceived autonomy support from parents. It allows to suggest that the be-haviour of coaches has a stronger impact on forming the peer motivational climate than the be-haviour of parents. It is not surprising that social behaviour of coaches, like autonomy support,in social sport context, is more predictive of peer motivational climate than the social behaviourof parents. This standpoint is consistent with several factors such as the context in which thesupport is provided and the degree of importance that young people attached to a particularsource (Hagger et al., 2007). More generally, coaches are the adults most directly involved inthe youth sport domain and they personify the goals of sport as well as the demands of sportrules. Therefore, athletes’ experience regarding coaches’ behaviour/actions may reflect their atti-tudes in terms of task- or ego-involving behaviour in sport. Although coaches may impact ath-letes’ experience in sport most directly, parents still have an important role on the formation ofathletes’ task- or ego-involving behaviour. This is also congruent with the findings of the studyof Stiller and Ryan (1992) where the perception of autonomy support from teachers andparents was correlated with students’ motivation.

In this study, it was also hypothesised that task-involving dimensions of PeerMCYSQare positively and ego-involving dimensions of PeerMCYSQ are negatively related to self-determined motivation. This is consistent with previous research that has provided support forthe association between the motivational climate created by coaches and intrinsic motivation(Duda, 2001; Duda & Hall, 2001; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999). In addition, our findings are

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

conceptually similar to the study by Vazou et al. (2006) that found a positive association betweencoaches and peers task-involving climate with athletes’ enjoyment. More specifically, accordingto our results, intra-team competition ability of ego-involving peer climate was the only signifi-cant and strong negative predictor of athletes’ self-determined motivation in sport. The negativerelationship of self-determined motivation to intra-team competition ability indicates that unsup-portive behaviour by peers is likely to decrease athletes’ behavioural disposition in their sport(Vazou et al., 2006). Therefore, in order to increase motivation it is important to avoid situationswhere teammates perceive a comparison of their ability.

Overall, the above findings extended our knowledge regarding the effects of the peer motiva-tional climate and perceived autonomy support from adults in youth sport. The present study isunique in terms of providing evidence for supporting the proposed model for self-determinedmotivation in youth sport as it incorporates specific components of three significant socialagents, namely perceived autonomy support from parents and from coaches and peer motivationalclimate. Moreover, the model indicates that autonomy support from coaches and parents are ante-cedents to the dimensions of peer motivational climate.

The findings of the present study also revealed that perceived autonomy support from parentsdirectly predicted self-determined motivation. Perceived autonomy support from coaches has asignificant total effect on self-determined motivation. Furthermore, the results allow to assumethat the relationships between athletes’ perception of autonomy support from adults and theirsport motivation might be attenuated by the perceived peer motivational climate.

From an applied perspective, these results highlight the importance of peers as essential influ-encers, along with adults, on adolescents’ sport motivation. However, future research shouldexamine additional relationships between self-regulation of motivation and social-contextualfactors. For example, further work, using the motivational model of sequence proposed by Val-lerand (1997), might examine how relationships between autonomy support from adults and peermotivational climate influence athletes’ motivation via perceived physiological needs. Studieswould also survey how these relationships with significant others namely coaches and parentsfurther impact dropout behaviour.

Note1. All information about the factor loadings and solution estimates are available upon request from the first

author.

ReferencesAmes, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,

84, 261–271.Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motiv-

ation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.Biddle, S., Cury, F., Goudas, M., Sarrazin, P., Famose, J. P., & Durand, M. (1995). Development of scales to

measure perceived physical education class climate: A cross-national project. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 65, 341–358.

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry(Eds.), Fatigue: Field methods in educational research (pp. 137–164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brustad, R. J., & Partridge, J. A. (2002). Parental and peer influence on children’s psychosocial developmentthrough sport. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial per-spective (2nd ed., pp. 187–210). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Carr, S., Weigand, D. A., & Hussey, W. (1999). The relative influence of parents, teachers, and peers on chil-dren and adolescents’ achievement and intrinsic motivation and perceived competence in physical edu-cation. Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 5, 28–51.

10 V. Hein and H. Jõesaar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Carr, S., Weigand, D. A., & Jones, J. (2000). The relative influence of parents, peers and sporting heroes ongoal orientations of children and adolescents in sport. Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 6, 34–55.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.New York, NY: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-deter-mination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and understanding somemisunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Fatigue: Advances in motivation in sport and exercise.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport: Recent extensions and future directions.In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Fatigue: Handbook of sport psychology(pp. 417–443). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Evans, J., & Roberts, G. C. (1987). Physical competence and the development of children’s peer relations.Quest, 39, 23–35.

Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Parental influences on youth involvement in sports. In M. R. Weiss(Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 145–164).Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Gagne, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivationand well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372–390.

Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensionalconstruct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574–587.

Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Hagger, M. S., Biddle, S. J. H., & Wang, C. K. J. (2005). Physical self-perceptions in adolescence:Generalizability of a multidimensional, hierarchical model across gender and grade. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 65, 297–322.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Culverhouse, T., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2003). The processes by whichperceived autonomy support in physical education promotes leisure-time physical activity intentions andbehavior: A trans-contextual model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 784–795.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hein, V., Pihu, M., Soo’, I., & Karsai, I. (2007). The perceived auton-omy support scale for exercise settings (PASSES): Development, validity, and cross-cultural invariancein young people. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 632–653.

Hein, V., Müür, M., & Koka, A. (2004). Intention to be physically active after school graduation and itsrelationships to three types of intrinsic motivation. European Physical Education Review, 10, 5–19.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventionalcriteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

Jõesaar, H., Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2012). Youth athletes’ perception of autonomy support from thecoach, peer motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in sport setting: One-year effects.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 257–262.

Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., du Toit, S. H. C., & du Toit, M. (2001). LISREL 8: New statistical features.Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivationinventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly forExercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.

Newton, M., Duda, J. L., & Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the psychometric properties of the perceivedmotivational climate in sport questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes. Journal of SportsSciences, 18, 275–290.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). A review of motivational climate in physical activity. Journal ofSports Sciences, 17, 643–665.

Ntoumanis, N., Taylor, I. M., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2012). A longitudinal examination of coach andpeer motivational climates in youth sport: Implications for moral attitudes, well-being, and behavioralinvestment. Developmental Psychology, 48, 213–223.

Ntoumanis, N., & Vazou, S. (2005). Peer motivational climate in youth sport: Measurement developmentand validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27, 432–455.

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Olympiou, A., Jowett, S., Joan, L. & Duda, J. L. (2008). The psychological interface between the coach-created motivational climate and the coach-athlete relationship in team sports. The SportPsychologist, 22, 423–438.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations between perceivedautonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation andEmotion, 25, 279–306.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Brière, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward anew measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation in sports: The SportMotivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35–53.

Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory andresearch. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 319–337.

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan(Eds.), Fatigue: Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 161–182). Rochester, NY: Universityof Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical per-spective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Fatigue: Handbook of self-determination research(pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Solky, J. A. (1996). What is supportive about social support? On the psychological needs forautonomy and relatedness. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Fatigue: Handbook ofsocial support and the family (pp. 249–267). New York, NY: Plenum.

Seifriz, J. J., Duda, J. L., & Chi, L. (1992). The relationship of perceivedmotivational climate to intrinsic motiv-ation and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 375–391.

Silk, J. S., Morris, A. S., Kanaya, T., & Steinberg, L. (2003). Psychological control and autonomy granting:Opposite ends of a continuum or distinct constructs? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 113–128.

Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2002). Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (2nd ed.).Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determination in 3 life domains:The role of parents’ and teachers’ autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 589–604.

Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in physical education:Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activityintentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 97–110.

Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Fatigue: Handbook ofparenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 103–133). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stiller, J. D., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Teachers, parents, and student motivation: The effect of involvement andautonomy support. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Conferencepaper), pp. 2–24. San Francisco.

Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (1998). Relationship between female adolescents’ achievement goal orien-tations, perceptions of the motivational climate, belief about success and sources of satisfaction in bas-ketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 211–230.

Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A. L. (2006). Perceptions of relationships with parents and in youth sport:Independent and combined prediction of motivational outcomes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,7, 193–214.

Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A. L. (2009). Social and motivational predictors of continued youth sport par-ticipation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 87–95.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna(Ed.), Fatigue: Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271–360). New York, NY:Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. J., & Fortier, M. S. (1998). Measures of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physicalactivity: A review and critique. In J. Duda (Ed.), Fatigue: In advances in sport and exercise psychologymeasurement (pp. 81–101). Morgantown, WV: FIT.

Vazou, S., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Predicting young athletes’motivational indices as a functionof their perceptions of the coach- and peer-created climate.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 215–233.

Walling, M. D., Duda, J. L., & Chi, L. (1993). The perceived motivational climate in sport questionnaire:Construct and predictive validity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 172–183.

Weiss, M. R., Smith, A. L., & Theeboom, M. (1996). “That’s what friends are for”: Children’s and teenagers’perceptions of peer relationships in the sport domain. Journal of Sport&Exercise Psychology, 18, 347–379.

White, S. A. (1996). Goal orientation and perceptions of the motivational climate initiated by parents.Pediatric Exercise Science, 8, 122–129.

12 V. Hein and H. Jõesaar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 2

3:01

04

Oct

ober

201

4